DALSUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI SATASIA & OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 06-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 332 : 2026 INSC 21
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others 
v. 
State of Gujarat & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 6130 of 2016)
06 January 2026
[B.V. Nagarathna* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing 
the writ petitions by not applying s.4 of the Repealing Act and 
thereby not granting relief to the appellants; was the delivery of 
notice u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act to the appellants (as possessors 
of the concerned lands) a mandatory step, the non-fulfilment of 
which would render abatement of the proceedings in terms of s.4 
of the Repealing Act; and that despite the recording of lands in 
the name of the State Government, if actual possession was not 
subsequently transferred to the Government, would this render 
the proceedings to abate u/s.4 of the Repealing Act.
Headnotes†
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – ss.6(1), 10(5), 
10(6), 21 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 
1999 – ss.3, 4 – Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling 
limit – Requirement of issuance of notice to possessors – Land 
admeasuring 9303 square metres belonged to the heir as its 
true owner and occupier – Order by the competent authority 
that the land in question was exempt u/s.21 and the remaining 
land was within the ceiling limit and was not excess land – In 
a public auction, land was purchased by a Society and issued 
possession receipts to multiple sub-plot holders including the 
appellant – Assistant Collector cancelled the mutation entry, 
thereafter, the order was challenged before various forums 
and finally the Competent Authority passed an order declaring 
662.18 sq. metres as excess land – On the cancellation of 
the auction purchase, the original landowner, entered into a 
registered agreements of sale for the sub-plots in favour of 
* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 
333
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
the sub-plot holders/appellants, and the appellants became 
owners and came into possession of sub-plots – Notice 
u/s.10(5) issued only to original landholder directing him to 
vacate and handover possession of the “excess land” to the 
respondent-State – Since possession was not surrendered, 
the Deputy Collector directed taking over of possession of 
the excess land – Sub-plot holders tried to resell their sub-
plots, the Competent Authority refused to grant NOCs – Writ 
petitions by the appellants before High Court dismissed as 
also appeals thereagainst – Correctness: 
Held: Requirement of issuance of notice u/s.10(5) is mandatory 
and must be issued to the persons actually in possession of the 
concerned land – This is clear from the wording of the statute-
order any person who may be in possession of it – Importance 
of delivering notice lay in avoiding a situation where a person is 
“dispossessed” without notice which would be in violation of the 
principles of natural justice, thereby clearly envisioning that the 
possessor must be served with notice – As per the provisions of 
s.10(3) and 10(5), the subject land, despite having ‘vested’ in the 
State Government, was not in the possession of the Government – 
Possesion of the land continued with the appellant – Proviso to 
s.4 not applicable and the benefit of abatement under the section 
would apply – Legislative intent is that in cases where lands 
were deemed to have been vested but possession was not yet 
transferred as on date of enforcement of the Repealing Act, the 
lands were to remain in possession of the private parties – Vesting 
and possession are distinct and that without the latter, the private 
parties have a claim over continuing to be in possession – On 
the date of issuance of notice, the appellants as possessors did 
not receive the notice – It was sent to the erstwhile owner of the 
subject land – This also implies that the respondents also were 
aware of the fact that actual possession was not with them and 
there was a need to issue notice u/s.10(5) before taking over actual 
possession – However, the respondents did not ascertain as to in 
whose name actual possession stood – Thus, no notice was issued 
to the appellants and hence there being no transfer of possession 
in accordance with s.10, it continues with the appellants both in 
fact as well as in law – Hence, entitled to the benefit of s.4 of the 
Repealing Act as they do not fall within the scope of s.3 of the said 
Act which is the savings clause – O

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.